Ross Products v. Newman
| Decision Date | 28 November 1950 |
| Parties | ROSS PRODUCTS, Inc., et al. v. NEWMAN et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Minot & Zasloff, New York City, for plaintiffs.
Harry Price, New York City, for defendant Premier Products Co.
On this motion to remand, the only substantial issue is presented by defendant, Premier Products', contention that a claim founded solely on allegations of unfair competition is one arising under the Lanham Trade Mark Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1051-1127, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, even absent diversity of citizenship.
That the law was precisely the opposite prior to the effective date of the Lanham Act cannot be disputed. Magic Foam Sales Corp. v. Mystic Foam Corp., 6 Cir. 1948, 167 F.2d 88. Indeed, the federal courts have long been preoccupied with the circumstances under which they could entertain a claim for unfair competition even when it was coupled with a claim for infringement of a registered trade mark. Treasure Imports, Inc. v. Henry Amdur & Sons, Inc., 2 Cir. 1942, 127 F.2d 3, 5.
The view that the Lanham Act expanded federal jurisdiction to include purely unfair competition claims was recently advanced by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Stauffer v. Exley, 9 Cir., 184 F.2d 962. The court there points out that among benefits conferred in 15 U.S. C.A. § 1126, on certain foreign nationals and domiciliaries, is the right to avail themselves in unfair competition actions of the remedies provided by the Act for infringement of registered trade marks; and that in subsection (i) the same benefits are conferred on citizens or residents of the United States. Therefore, the court infers, claims based on allegations of unfair competition fall within the ambit of 15 U.S. C.A. § 1121, which vested the district courts with jurisdiction "of all actions arising under this chapter, without regard to the amount in controversy or to diversity or lack of diversity of the citizenship of the parties."
As against this line of reasoning, there is the clear language of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1338, which in subsection (a), vests the district courts with "original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, copyrights and trade-marks"; and then goes on, in subsection (b) (added in 1948), to declare: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action asserting a claim of unfair competition when joined with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haeger Potteries v. Gilner Potteries
...F. 2d at pages 178-180; Old Reading Brewery v. Lebanon Valley Brewing Co., supra, 102 F.Supp. at pages 438-439; Ross Products v. Newman, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1950, 94 F.Supp. 566, 567. It is recognized of course that Pagliero v. Wallace China Co. and Stauffer v. Exley have been construed as holding ......
-
Dad's Root Beer Co. v. Doc's Beverages
...9 Cir., 184 F.2d 962,4 and approved in In re Lyndale Farm, C.C.P.A., 186 F.2d 723, 726, 727. To the contrary is Ross Products v. Newman, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 94 F.Supp. 566, holding that subsection (i) does not create any additional rights beyond those conferred earlier in the act.5 The issue was ......
-
Royal Lace Paper Works v. Pest-Guard Products
...infringement of a registered trade mark, that remedies were available for unfair competition. Quoting with approval from Ross Products v. Newman, D.C., 94 F.Supp. 5666, in which the court, declining to follow the lead of the Stauffer case, cites 28 U.S. C.A. § 1338(b), note 3, supra, as req......
-
Bogene Inc. v. Whit-Mor Manufacturing Co.
...Kaz Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc., 211 F.Supp. 815 (S.D.N.Y.1962), aff'd, 317 F.2d 679 (2d Cir. 1963); Ross Prods., Inc. v. Newman, 94 F.Supp. 566 (S.D.N.Y.1950). With the exception of the Kaz case, supra, those decisions are inapposite as they are concerned with Section 44 of ......